| User Blox 4 |
|
- Put stuff here
|
Barack Obama  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.
|
|
Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:56:13 PM MST
|
| Recently the Montana Chamber of Commerce held a "Climate Change Dialog," entitled "The Economic Impacts of Climate Change Proposals," and featured Dr. Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation.
Given that the council has been an active lobbyist against climate change legislation since the mid-1990s and is extensively funded by Exxon, you'd expect a doom-and-gloom study about the cost of battling climate change. You'd be right.
I haven't seen the actual report, but I suspect it leaves out the already existing economic impact of having a fossil-fuel based economy. Heck, the Iraq War itself is costing taxpayers - what? -- $12 billion a month? And then there's environmental cleanup costs associated with drilling and mining for coal and oil, the cost of polluting, the billions poured into infrastructure supporting an oil-burning economy, and the subsidies for Big Energy.
And I suspect not a word was penned about the economic impact of not reacting to climate change, a hint of which we already see here in Montana as our wildfire fighting budget spins out of control, hampering the Forest Service's ability to actually manage our country's forests.
Thorning and the American Council for Capital Formation are defending existing and obsolete industries from extinction, and drumming up support to halt meaningful innovation, progress, and long-term sustainability of our environment and, yes, our economy. |
| Jay Stevens :: How about a "green" New Deal? |
A carbon tax or cap-and-trade system would necessarily spur new industry, innovation, and cheaper sources of energy. That is, climate change legislation could actually help the U.S. economy, nut hurt it:
"As Congress prepares to debate new legislation to address the threat of climate change, opponents claim that the costs of adopting the leading proposals would be ruinous to the U.S. economy. The world's leading economists who have studied the issue say that's wrong - and you can find out for yourself," said Robert Repetto, professor in the practice of economics and sustainable development at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies who created the site.
The interactive website synthesized thousands of policy analyses in order to identify the seven key assumptions accounting for most of the differences in the model predictions. The site allows visitors to choose which assumptions they feel are most realistic and then view the predictions of the economic models based on the chosen assumptions.
Among the key optimistic assumptions are that renewable energy technologies will be available at stable or increasing prices; that higher fossil fuel prices will stimulate energy-saving technological change; that reducing U.S. carbon emissions will reduce economic damages from climate change and air pollution; and that the United States will incorporate international trading of emission permits into its national policy.
Even under the worst assumptions, the economy continues to grow. The news of a wind turbine manufacturing plant going up in Butte should give you an idea of what's possible for Montana in a future where policymakers embrace the inevitable. (Only why shouldn't the company be U.S.- or Montana-based instead of German?)
While the Exxon puppets and our chamber of commerce have little in common, there's no doubt that they both represent companies that exist, profit, and thrive in the present economy. And there's no doubt that stringent climate change legislation will hurt some of these folks, perhaps fatally. As a result, you'll hear a lot of lip service being paid to the "free market" and "innovation" and the economy from business "leaders," but if you listen carefully you'll hear only policy that's sluggish, reactive and against innovation and change.
But here's the thing: change is coming. So...what are you going to do about it?
I like Bill McKibben's vision of a "green" New Deal (from a pretty cool series by The Nation):
We usually talk about New Deal programs in terms of their effect on the mood of Americans--they restored hope, they gave people back their dignity and so on. Sometimes we talk about how they helped get the economy afloat again. But there was another result: the hundreds of thousands of actual projects that were built in those years. Hiking trails, city halls, bridges, park gazebos, public plazas, dams, and on and on. For my money, that's the kind of work that needs doing now, as we face a crisis even greater than the Depression: the quick unraveling of the planet's climate system in the face of our endless emissions of carbon dioxide. |
|
| Poll |
| Voting. Useful or not? |
|
|
|
Results
|
|
